But it seems that speculation was premature, as Ubisoft is now arguing to the USPTO that the abandonment application was a fake. "The Request for Express Abandonment purports to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of Ubisoft Entertainment, Yves Guillemot," the petition reads. "Mr. Guillemot, however, did not sign the Request for Express Abandonment, nor did Ubisoft Entertainment file the Request for Express Abandonment. The Request for Express Abandonment is fraudulent and was not filed by Ubisoft Entertainment or its representative."

"We are working directly with the US [patent and trademark office] on reinstating the trademark for Watch Dogs, and it will be active again in the coming days,” a Ubisoft spokesperson told VentureBeat. "The matter has no impact on the Watch Dogs development."

This is very odd.....but if it just happened over the weekend, then it really doesn't have anything to do with why Watch Dogs has been delayed.

I guess the bigger question, then, if there's no real effect on development is why would someone do this? Of all the ways for an outsider to screw with Ubisoft, this is the way they'd go? Seems more likely that this may be the actions of a disgruntled employee.

"We are working directly with the US [patent and trademark office] on reinstating the trademark for Watch Dogs, and it will be active again in the coming days,”

suggests this wasn't merely an attempt to have the trademark abandoned, but a (semi) successful one.

So the trademark office doesn't even bother with writing back and asking "Are you sure [y/n]" before doing this? That seems awfully slack.

Why would the trademark office care if you abandon a trademark?

All they know is they recieved a request, by a person, with the authority to do so.

Now the fact it was fraudulent is seperate matter. The good news the trademark office can either accept the request or deny the request, they can even accept it, and turn around and unaccept it.

Do we really need to have more hold handing in today's society?

Are you seriously asking why people are assuming that the office that exists solely to deal with trademarks and patent claims should probably perform some due diligence to deal with trademarks and patent claims?

I'm cynical enough to wonder if this is all some sort of ARG to generate buzz. The game is about a shadowy government and people rebelling against a surveillance state, right? This feels close enough to that to come off just a bit staged.

I'm cynical enough to wonder if this is all some sort of ARG to generate buzz. The game is about a shadowy government and people rebelling against a surveillance state, right? This feels close enough to that to come off just a bit staged.

Original application traced back to the home of one Aiden Pierce, now sought for questioning.

"We are working directly with the US [patent and trademark office] on reinstating the trademark for Watch Dogs, and it will be active again in the coming days,”

suggests this wasn't merely an attempt to have the trademark abandoned, but a (semi) successful one.

So the trademark office doesn't even bother with writing back and asking "Are you sure [y/n]" before doing this? That seems awfully slack.

My understanding is that is exactly what happened. From a competing site: "On February 1, 2014, Ubisoft Entertainment received an email from TEAS@uspto.gov notifying Ubisoft Entertainment that a Request for Express Abandonment had been filed in connection with Application Serial No. 85642398."

Trademarking a title of your product and trademarking a common word would appear to be two different things. Granted I am not a trademark attorney so I am speaking out of my rear.

Are you referring to my lumping King's Candy trademark in at the end of the story? If so, I agree they are two different things, but given that King's is another trademark-related story in the video game realm in the very recent past, I thought it merited a mention.

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Should Ubisoft get and keep a TM on "Watch Dogs" and variations thereof? Sure, because the combination matters, it is indicative of their specific product and brand, and no one else has (apparently) used that combination before in the video game industry.

Should the Ubisoft TM on "Watch Dogs" give them the right to stop a night security company from using the same name? No, because "private security" is a different industry, providing very different goods and services than "video games".

Can one get a trademark on a single, common word, (e.g. Halo)? Sure, if it isn't something that needs to remain available for general use in the related industry.

The best example: Apple. No fruit / agriculture company can get a TM on the word "apple"; it is too common for anyone to deny another entity's use. In the computer electronics realm though? Apple had no particular understood use or identification, and the company itself developed a special meaning and association for the word Apple in the computer electronics industry.

Prior to Apple (computers), however, Apple Records (the label founded by the Beatles) existed, and IIRC raised an objection to Apple (computers) using the word apple under TM law. The objection was denied because personal computers were nowhere close to the same goods & services as a music label or other such music service. Yes, today one can consider the irony of that rationale, but something like iTunes was simply not contemplated at that time.

I wonder what the people involved with the fraudulent filing hoped to achieve with this. Even if Ubisoft and the USPTO dropped the ball and the trademark was abandoned, nobody would be able to take the name over without going through an application process and revealing who they were. In any event, as soon as the fraud was discovered the new claims could be invalidated and the ownership reverted. A trademark isn’t like a box of gold which you can just disappear with.

The only thing which I can think of which might work would be if someone already had a pending foreign trademark application which was blocked by the current US trademark. If the US trademark was voided the foreign application could be approved and could potentially stick. The filers of the abandonment order would conveniently not be linked to the new owners.

The fraudulent request was stamped with (among other things) an IP address that resolves to somewhere in Sweden. So, it remains to be seen whether that's just a Tor exit node or if somebody was stupid enough to do this without anonymizing themselves. (At the very least, they owe Ubisoft's lawyers $100 for the petition fee they had to pay to avoid the abandonment.)

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Well "Windows" is a pretty common term too, but god help anyone trying to think they can challenge Microsoft's trademark on it.

Common words *can* be trademarked in specific fields and there've been many examples on exactly that.

What I don't see happening is someone trademarking parts of a term they used in a game (trademarking "Candy" just because you have a game called "Candy crush" is ridiculous) or someone being capable of avoiding anyone else using the word in a longer title (although that depends on how similar the result would be, people probably shouldn't easily confuse it with a sequel).

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Well "Windows" is a pretty common term too, but god help anyone trying to think they can challenge Microsoft's trademark on it.

Common words *can* be trademarked in specific fields and there've been many examples on exactly that.

What I don't see happening is someone trademarking parts of a term they used in a game (trademarking "Candy" just because you have a game called "Candy crush" is ridiculous) or someone being capable of avoiding anyone else using the word in a longer title (although that depends on how similar the result would be, people probably shouldn't easily confuse it with a sequel).

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Well "Windows" is a pretty common term too, but god help anyone trying to think they can challenge Microsoft's trademark on it.

Common words *can* be trademarked in specific fields and there've been many examples on exactly that.

What I don't see happening is someone trademarking parts of a term they used in a game (trademarking "Candy" just because you have a game called "Candy crush" is ridiculous) or someone being capable of avoiding anyone else using the word in a longer title (although that depends on how similar the result would be, people probably shouldn't easily confuse it with a sequel).

Well, like Apple, back when Microsoft was coming up with an idea for their product, "windows" probably didn't have any special meaning or need-to-remain-available in the computer electronics industry. The word was available in the specific "goods & services", but also common in general language, so it was an excellent choice in picking a brand that had easy name recognition, for which Miscrosoft then developed an association with their company and product.

A tangible reason why King shouldn't get a TM on "candy" alone; what happens if/when the makers of the board game Candyland put out an app? Is "video games" an industry closely enough related to "board games" so that one should say "candy" is too common in "games" industries to let anyone have a TM on the word? Also worth considering, "Candyland" already stakes a claim to the idea of "candy" themed games, is King violating a trademark of theirs?

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Well "Windows" is a pretty common term too, but god help anyone trying to think they can challenge Microsoft's trademark on it.

Common words *can* be trademarked in specific fields and there've been many examples on exactly that.

What I don't see happening is someone trademarking parts of a term they used in a game (trademarking "Candy" just because you have a game called "Candy crush" is ridiculous) or someone being capable of avoiding anyone else using the word in a longer title (although that depends on how similar the result would be, people probably shouldn't easily confuse it with a sequel).

Well, like Apple, back when Microsoft was coming up with an idea for their product, "windows" probably didn't have any special meaning or need-to-remain-available in the computer electronics industry. The word was available in the specific "goods & services", but also common in general language, so it was an excellent choice in picking a brand that had easy name recognition, for which Miscrosoft then developed an association with their company and product.

A tangible reason why King shouldn't get a TM on "candy" alone; what happens if/when the makers of the board game Candyland put out an app? Is "video games" an industry closely enough related to "board games" so that one should say "candy" is too common in "games" industries to let anyone have a TM on the word? Also worth considering, "Candyland" already stakes a claim to the idea of "candy" themed games, is King violating a trademark of theirs?

I interpreted your comment that nobody should be allowed to get a trademark for say "Candy" at all, not sure if that was your intention there.

Personally I think it depends: Could people confuse a game called "Candy" with "Candyland"? In general I'd say that if you pick a common name then yes I agree that your trademark should be much more narrow and specific than otherwise (i.e. "xkcd" is a very unique name so should get stronger protection about similar names than something called "candy"). Not sure how that's handled legally though.

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Well "Windows" is a pretty common term too, but god help anyone trying to think they can challenge Microsoft's trademark on it.

Common words *can* be trademarked in specific fields and there've been many examples on exactly that.

What I don't see happening is someone trademarking parts of a term they used in a game (trademarking "Candy" just because you have a game called "Candy crush" is ridiculous) or someone being capable of avoiding anyone else using the word in a longer title (although that depends on how similar the result would be, people probably shouldn't easily confuse it with a sequel).

....which is exactly what skyywise's original comment said.

No it wasn't - he mentioned both concepts. "Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No,[...]". That I agree with the other point is I think pretty clear.

"We are working directly with the US [patent and trademark office] on reinstating the trademark for Watch Dogs, and it will be active again in the coming days,”

suggests this wasn't merely an attempt to have the trademark abandoned, but a (semi) successful one.

So the trademark office doesn't even bother with writing back and asking "Are you sure [y/n]" before doing this? That seems awfully slack.

My understanding is that is exactly what happened. From a competing site: "On February 1, 2014, Ubisoft Entertainment received an email from TEAS@uspto.gov notifying Ubisoft Entertainment that a Request for Express Abandonment had been filed in connection with Application Serial No. 85642398."

Nice ad hominem attack for no reason, buddy. What you posit above isn't what I was suggesting at all.

So let's get into some general Trademark principles. Consider the following:

Video games using the word "dog" in the title - Sleeping Dogs, Dog's Life, Sea Dogs.Video games using the word "watch" in the title - Night Watch, Darkwatch, Watchmen

Should Ubisoft (or anyone) be granted trademark on either word independently? No, because those words are common and should remain available for public use, particularly in the context of the video game industry (i.e. the "goods and services" under which a TM has to be registered).

Well "Windows" is a pretty common term too, but god help anyone trying to think they can challenge Microsoft's trademark on it.

Common words *can* be trademarked in specific fields and there've been many examples on exactly that.

What I don't see happening is someone trademarking parts of a term they used in a game (trademarking "Candy" just because you have a game called "Candy crush" is ridiculous) or someone being capable of avoiding anyone else using the word in a longer title (although that depends on how similar the result would be, people probably shouldn't easily confuse it with a sequel).

Well, like Apple, back when Microsoft was coming up with an idea for their product, "windows" probably didn't have any special meaning or need-to-remain-available in the computer electronics industry. The word was available in the specific "goods & services", but also common in general language, so it was an excellent choice in picking a brand that had easy name recognition, for which Miscrosoft then developed an association with their company and product.

A tangible reason why King shouldn't get a TM on "candy" alone; what happens if/when the makers of the board game Candyland put out an app? Is "video games" an industry closely enough related to "board games" so that one should say "candy" is too common in "games" industries to let anyone have a TM on the word? Also worth considering, "Candyland" already stakes a claim to the idea of "candy" themed games, is King violating a trademark of theirs?

I interpreted your comment that nobody should be allowed to get a trademark for say "Candy" at all, not sure if that was your intention there.

Personally I think it depends: Could people confuse a game called "Candy" with "Candyland"? In general I'd say that if you pick a common name then yes I agree that your trademark should be much more narrow and specific than otherwise (i.e. "xkcd" is a very unique name so should get stronger protection about similar names than something called "candy"). Not sure how that's handled legally though.

My intent was to say that, in the realm of gaming (video, board, casino) industries, in view of the known and arguably common use of candy themes seen in many games, no entity should get a TM on the word "candy". In confectionery industries, the argument is stronger; no single candy-maker should have dominance over the word "candy". If you want to start a record label, lumber company, or are named Candy and opening a deli named after yourself, then there should be free reign to use the word "candy" and perhaps even get a trademark for that use / branding.

Also, "Personally I think it depends" is the most lawyerly answer you could give. I say this as a lawyer. (Edit: that isn't meant as an insult or anything.)

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.